The November 1 Marist poll in Iowa found 45% of respondents reporting that they have either already voted or plan to vote early. Presumably that means that 32% have already voted, and 13% plan to do so before Tuesday.
-
While some big name national trackers do indeed show Obama doing much poorer nationally compared to the 2 plus point lead Obama has on average in the Ohio state polls, his standing in the Ohio state polls is pretty much in the middle of the pack of how all other state polls aggregate and not very different than the universe of national polls beyond Gallup and Rasmussen.
-
The battle in Ohio is not Democratic vs Republican, Team Blue vs Team Red. It is a President who helped save the auto industry and its supply chain vs a 0.1%er who is perceived as saying let it die. In a state where they know this is true.
In a state that has seen two years of drops in unemployment and that is doing better than the national average in that regard. More than the average of the rest of the country, by a bit, Ohio is, right now, infertile ground for buying what Romney is selling.
I would just like to point out that in 2008, Ohio went for Obama even though I guess it was “slightly more red than the rest of the country” (as though that is some kind of measure of significance, but whatever, we all have our little hopes and dreams that we cling to). I really don’t think it logically follows that “Ohio will be more red than the rest of the country, therefore Romney will win it.”
You are failing to distinguish between Democratic objections to the 2004 polling and 2012 objections to polling by Republicans today. Democrats simply felt that the pollsters were underestimating Democratic turnout, because they figured Democrats were so motivated that they were going to easily outnumber Republicans. In other words, “This time is different”.
Republican objections are the opposite. The polls are saying “this time is different” and Republicans are saying, “Actually, things are the same.” Ohio is still redder than the country by a couple of points, and Democrats aren’t going to do even better on turnout than in 2008. Gallup and Rasmussen agree with this analysis, the other pollsters, mostly media pollsters, do not, they think something is actually different now. Secondly, Republicans have a specific objection that is provable: Pollsters are counting more early voters than are actually voting.
Obama won by seven points. If Obama ties Romney roughly in the popular vote, then Ohio would be expected to go for Romney by a point or two.
If things are the same now in Ohio as they were in 2008, the Democrat will win.
I am a big fan of the Economist and was wondering about their endorsement. Their last few endorsements have been Clinton, Dole, Bush, Kerry and Obama , each one a non-incumbent, so Romney would have fit that trend. However from reading their recent editorials my hunch was that they were leaning Obama so I am not surprised. It shows how far Romney has had to shift his positions: the MA Romney would probably have won their endorsement without breaking a sweat.
In the US context the Economist magazine is very much moderate NE Republican. I have never liked the idea, so popular on these boards, that “Obama is a moderate Republican” but I will agree to the weaker idea that Obama is closer to being a moderate Republican than the median of the Republican party and that’s what the Economist two-fer illustrates.
One could argue that the Economist endorsement is irrelevant but it’s part of a pattern along with the Powell and Bloomberg endorsements which will make a different at the margins especially with educated, upper-middle class professionals who are still undecided. The undecided may be 3-4% at this point and perhaps 10-20% of those may be high-information voters. I could see these endorsements swing about half a point towards Obama in a state like Virginia. Probably won’t make a difference but it’s a nice bonus to have late in the game.
Not if Obama is even with Romney nationally.
Now the auto bailout, that’s an interesting theory. THe problem is that if the auto bailout was decisive in Ohio, it would be extra decisive in Michigan. Yet Romney is running better than expected in Michigan. McCain lost Michigan by 16 points. So you figure Michigan was 9 points bluer than the country. So if teh race is even, ROmney should lose by 9 points. The auto bailout would mean he should lose by even more. But instead, Romney is down by only 3!
that would strongly imply that the auto bailout is not a decisive issue.
adaher, the mental gymnastics you are forcing yourself through in order to twist the numbers around to make it look like Romney is guaranteed victory are sort of amusing and yet also sort of sad to watch. I mean, you might as well go with the classic of “Hey, anything can happen - the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.” Because that at least makes sense. “Romney is going to win Ohio because political and demographic makeup of Ohio is identical to four years ago and that means that Ohio will trend slightly more Republican than the national average which means that if the popular vote is nearly tied then Ohio will go 1-2 points for Romney even though none of the current polls show that, because the polls are all wrong because they are overcounting Obama voters who haven’t voted yet even though some of those voters may still vote because Election Day isn’t until Tuesday” is kind of exciting to watch you spin out, in a way, but does not make sense. Just stick with the classic.
Some of the earlier comments made me wonder if this thread had revealed the culprits from the fork-theft thread, I mean, after all, how else will we have what we need to stick in him?
Nate Silver’s model has Obama winning nationally by 2.1 points. he has him winning Ohio by 2.7 points.
that would mean that if Romney won the national vote by 1 point, he probably wins in Ohio. If he’s actually up 2-5 as Rasmussen and Gallup say, then he doesn’t even need to worry about Ohio. Romney seems to be counting on Rasmussen and Gallup being right, because he’s going to Pennsylvania to campain and running ads in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
Ummm… Okay…
Trumped by the local unemployment rate still being 9.3%, significantly higher than the national average. Ohio’s is 7% and has been under 8% all year. 3.6 points down from its peak in '09 and even less than when he took office (when it was already rapidly rising). If it was not for the auto issue that sort of state unemployment rate would have this be a Michigan blow-out for Romney.
Why are you applying different standards to Michigan and Ohio?
In one you seem to be suggesting a demographic shift that you are decrying as impossible in the other?
Are there some numbers to support this? From what I can tell, at the moment 1.3 million people have voted in Ohio already. In 2008, 5.2 million people voted in Ohio. If we assume that 5.5 million or so will vote this time, then about 24% of voters have already voted. In the Survey USA poll that was just released a couple days ago, for example, they found that 25% of respondents reported having already voted. That seems about the same. Similarly, a Gravis poll at the end of October found that 20% of Ohio voters had already voted.
I’m not saying Michigan’s polls are right. I can’t even say what Michigan’s polls ARE except for their average, since they are all over the place, showing OBama up by as much as 9 or tied with Romney.
Ohio’s polls are more stable, but that does not mean they are more accurate than Michigan’s.
Because that’s how you can make Romney win, silly!
Clearly wrong.
Better, but still probably wrong.
Do they show Romney being ahead? If so then they are more accurate. If they show Obama ahead, then they are equally inaccurate. Or more inaccurate, if they show Obama being more ahead.
Yup. As said, Ohio is not tracking much bluer than the rest of the country, just wee tad. As the country goes so likely will go Ohio … and visa versa.
As for the Romney efforts spreading out … one could read it the way you do, or one could read it as throwing whatever Hail Marys you can knowing that you need a game changing play and you need it now. It isn’t like even more densely aired ads in Ohio (or the other major swing states) will matter at this point - they are far past saturation point there.
As of TODAY. As of the time those pollsters did their surveys, that was not the case.